The OP is a rather poor attempt to basically say that for one to acquire wealth someone else must lose wealth. I suppose one can argue that from a simple transaction perspective, but it doesn't hold true over time. I'm not sure it's even true from an anologous perspective. After all the theory is that energy is finite and the subject is equating energy to the money supply... ... I have a lot of theories on how wealth is accumulated, but I also know the notion that we are all simply exchanging a finite money supply simply is not true.
If I were so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with printed currency, I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling.
There is a reason that this is a philosophical discussion...in many ways, it comes down to what one truly believes wealth to be a measure of.
You qre so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with energy. Fortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling. Confusing the worth of things with theirpercieved or real existence is an error of Randian proportions. A bar of gold has no inherent worth.
Magus: ''It is my philosophical understanding that wealth cannot be created. I contend that wealth adheres to a law similar to the law of conservation of energy...A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form
The law of conservation of wealth, as it were, would state that the total amount of wealth worldwide (an isolated system) remains constant over time. The only thing that can happen to wealth in a closed system is that it can change formÂ…and ownership.''
.
..and here is where MP exposes his achilles heel: ''Once one acknowledges and accepts this, a thing I believe to be an obvious truth, one then begins to understand the true ...''
MP is stating things as truths even as he says IT can't be proven one way or another.